ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ
Appears 4 times in Quran
Occurrences in Quran
Found 4 verses containing "ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ".
يُوصِيكُمُ ٱللَّهُ فِىٓ أَوْلَٰدِكُمْ ۖ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ ۚ فَإِن كُنَّ نِسَآءً فَوْقَ ٱثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُنَّ ثُلُثَا مَا تَرَكَ ۖ وَإِن كَانَتْ وَٰحِدَةً فَلَهَا ٱلنِّصْفُ ۚ وَلِأَبَوَيْهِ لِكُلِّ وَٰحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا ٱلسُّدُسُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ إِن كَانَ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهُۥ وَلَدٌ وَوَرِثَهُۥٓ أَبَوَاهُ فَلِأُمِّهِ ٱلثُّلُثُ ۚ فَإِن كَانَ لَهُۥٓ إِخْوَةٌ فَلِأُمِّهِ ٱلسُّدُسُ ۚ مِنۢ بَعْدِ وَصِيَّةٍ يُوصِى بِهَآ أَوْ دَيْنٍ ۗ ءَابَآؤُكُمْ وَأَبْنَآؤُكُمْ لَا تَدْرُونَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ لَكُمْ نَفْعًا ۚ فَرِيضَةً مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا
4:177.
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
4:177.
Father and mother both (Lane).
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
4:177.
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
314
这节经文规定一个死者的近亲不论男女或出生的先后应得他遗产的份额。儿女、双亲、丈夫与妻子是主要继承人, 如果他们活着, 不论在什么情况下应得自己的一份, 其他有名份的亲戚只能在特殊情况下得到他们的一份。男的比女的应得的份额要多一倍, 因为他们负责维持家计 (مَعَانِی, Ma‘ani, ii.P.32)。这节经文开始时制定关于子女所得份额的比例的一般法则。一个儿子应得等于两个女儿的份额。因此, 凡是儿子和女儿都有的情况下, 就按这一法则办事。如果只有女儿而没有儿子, 经文规定把遗产的三分之二分给两个以上的女儿; 把二分之一给独生女。如果是两个女儿那应该分得多少, 经文没明确说明。但此句中用一个连接词 ف (fa, 但是), “但是如果有两个以上的女儿”, 这清楚地指出两个女儿已包括在前面 “两个女儿” 这几个字中。而且两个女人应得的份数可以在这节经文开始时所说的男女应得份数的比例中推想出来。按照那个比例, 一个儿子可得两个女儿的份数。因此, 如果有一个儿子和一个女儿, 那个儿子可得三分之二的遗产。可是, 由于一个儿子可得等于 “两个女儿” 的份额, 因此没有儿子而有两个女儿的情况下可得三分之二, 即等于经文明确说明给三个女儿相同的份额。因此, 这节经文的结构表明, 如果死者有两个女儿而没有儿子, 她们像有三个女儿的情况那样也可得三分之二的遗产。假如 «古兰经» 的这一句并不指两个女儿应得的份额, 那么, 这句用字就应该像这样, “一个男人应得一个女人两倍的份额”, 而不是像现在那样的句子。关于双亲的份额经文中谈了三种情况: (1) 如果一个人死了留下一个或几个儿女, 那么, 父母亲中每个人应得六分之一。(2) 如果一个人死后无儿女, 他的父母是惟一继承人 (死者没有妻子或丈夫), 那么, 母亲应得三分之一的财产, 其馀的三分之二归父亲所有。(3) 还有第三种情况, 实际上是第二种情况的例外。一个人死后无嗣, 他的父母亲是惟一的继承人, 但他有兄弟姐妹, 那么, 虽然他的兄弟姐妹不能继承他的财产, 但他们的存在会影响他父母亲的份额, 因为, 在这种情况下, 母亲将得六分之一 (不是像第二种情况那样得三份之一), 其余的六分之五归父亲所有。父亲在这种情况下被授予较大的份额的理由是, 父亲还要负担死者兄弟姐妹的生活。关于继承权的这一论题, 在随后的经文中继续谈下去。
b
4:177.
494
Important Words:
ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).
ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
Commentary:
This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.
Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).
The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.
The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.
The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).
The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.
b
4:177.
573
Father and mother both (Lane).
574
Walad means, (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. The word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).
574A
The verse prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of his family (Ma‘ani, ii. p.32). The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So, wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two- thirds of the legacy to the daughters, if there are more than two of them; and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters in case there are two is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction fa’ (but) in the clause, but if there be
يَسْتَفْتُونَكَ قُلِ ٱللَّهُ يُفْتِيكُمْ فِى ٱلْكَلَٰلَةِ ۚ إِنِ ٱمْرُؤٌا۟ هَلَكَ لَيْسَ لَهُۥ وَلَدٌ وَلَهُۥٓ أُخْتٌ فَلَهَا نِصْفُ مَا تَرَكَ ۚ وَهُوَ يَرِثُهَآ إِن لَّمْ يَكُن لَّهَا وَلَدٌ ۚ فَإِن كَانَتَا ٱثْنَتَيْنِ فَلَهُمَا ٱلثُّلُثَانِ مِمَّا تَرَكَ ۚ وَإِن كَانُوٓا۟ إِخْوَةً رِّجَالًا وَنِسَآءً فَلِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ ۗ يُبَيِّنُ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ أَن تَضِلُّوا۟ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌۢ
4:12.
4:27.
4:13.
4:13 经文谈及一种 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah, 身后无父母子女者), 只有母方的兄弟和姐妹。本节中述及另一种 كَلَالَةْ (身后无父母子女者) 他既有父方的又有母方的兄弟和姐妹, 或者只有父方的。把现在注释的经文同4:13经文比较一下, 就清楚地可以看出, 前一种兄弟姐妹分得的份量比后一种要少的明显理由。
这部分继承法刻意与4:12, 13经文中述及的法律分开来处理。«古兰经» 在详细论述犹太人针对伊撒的攻击以后, 在本章末尾又回到 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah, 身后无父母子女者) 这个论题上来。这样, {除了使有关 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 的法律完整以外} 要求人们注意伊撒在精神上的无继承性, 他在某种意义上说, 也是一个 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah)。伊撒是在没有父亲的媒介下出生的, 他死后没有精神继承人。伊本, 阿巴斯给 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 下的定义是一个没有子女的人。伊撒在精神上是 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah), 因为他死后没有精神继承人。
میرے ایک استاد کہا کرتے تھے کہ اس جگہ کلالہ سے مراد مسیحؑ ہے کیونکہ اوپر انہی کا ذکر ہے۔ واللہ اعلم بالصواب۔
کلالہ کے ورثہ کی تقسیم کے متعلق ایک حکم سورۃ نساء کی آیت۱۳ میں گزر چکا ہے۔ اس جگہ کلالہ کے ورثہ کی تقسیم کا جو مسئلہ بیان کیا گیا ہے‘ وہ پہلے سے مختلف ہے۔ سورۃ نساء کی آیت۱۳ میں یہ ذکر تھا کہ اگر کلالہ مر جائے اس کے بہن بھائی ماں کی طرف سے ہوں تو ان کو ۶ / ۱ یا ۳ / ۱ ملے گا۔ لیکن اِس جگہ اس کلالہ کا ذکر ہے جس کے بہن بھائی ماں اور باپ دونوں کی طرف سے ہوں یا صرف باپ کی طرف سے۔
4:12.
4:27.
4:13.
In 4:13 mention was made of one kind of Kalalah who leaves behind neither a parent nor an offspring and who has brothers and sisters from the side of mother only. The present verse refers to a Kalalah who has brothers and sisters from both his parents, or from the side of his father only. By comparing the verse under comment with 4:13 it becomes clear that for obvious reasons the share allotted to the former class of brothers and sisters is less than that allotted to those of the latter class.
This part of the law of inheritance has been purposely treated separately from the law dealt with in 4:12, 13. After dealing at some length with the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jews, the Qur’an reverts to the subject of Kalalah at the end of the Surah, thus seeking (beside completing the law relating to Kalalah) to draw attention to the spiritual heirlessness of Jesus who in a sense was also a Kalalah. Jesus was born without the agency of a father, and he
4:13.
4:12.
4:27.
Important Words:
For the meaning of the word کلالة see 4:13.
Commentary:
ولد (child) means, child or children whether male or female, but as کلالة (kalalah) means, one having no child and no parent, the words ولا والد (and neither parent) may be taken as being understood after the words لیس له ولد. The word اثنتین (lit. two) here means two or more sisters. This meaning is supported by a verdict of the Holy Prophet in which he applied this verse to the case of Jabir who died, leaving seven sisters (Jarir, vi. 24). The word اخوة (brethren) here includes sisters and brothers both, as the words رجالا و نساء (both men and women), forming case in apposition with اخوة indicate.
This verse, placed as it is in between the verses dealing with the Christians and their false doctrines, appears to be rather misplaced. But as the following note will show, it is very fittingly placed here, furnishing a striking proof of the Quran as well as its present arrangement being the work of God.
In 4:13 mention was made of one kind of Kalalah (one who leaves behind neither a parent nor an offspring) who had brothers and sisters from the side of his mother only. The present verse refers to a Kalalah who has brothers and sisters from both his parents, or from the side of his father only. By comparing the verse under comment with 4:13 it becomes clear that for obvious reasons the share allotted to the former class of brothers and sisters is less than that allotted to those of the latter class.
This part of the law of inheritance has been purposely treated separately from the main portion of the law dealt with in 4:12, 13 in the beginning of the Surah. The object in doing so is not far to seek. After dealing at some length with the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jews and clearing his position, the Quran reverts to the subject of Kalalah at the end of the Surah, thus seeking (beside completing the law relating to Kalalah) to draw, by a most fitting parable, our attention to the spiritual heirlessness of Jesus who, in a sense, was also a Kalalah. He was born without the agency of a father, and he left behind no spiritual successor to succeed him in his prophetic office, which was, after his death, inherited by the Ishmaelites. In this case the words, If a man dies, leaving no child, may also signify that Jesus was a Kalalah, not in the sense that spiritually speaking he had neither parents nor child, but in the restricted sense that he had no child. See 4:13 under Important Words where Ibn ‘Abbas defines a Kalalah as simply one who leaves no child. Thus Jesus was spiritually a Kalalah in the sense that he left behind no spiritual successor. Compare also the prophecy, "I will raise them a prophet from among their brethren" (Deut. 18:18).
a
4:12.
b
4:27.
e
4:13.
367
4:13 经文谈及一种 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah, 身后无父母子女者), 只有母方的兄弟和姐妹。本节中述及另一种 كَلَالَةْ (身后无父母子女者) 他既有父方的又有母方的兄弟和姐妹, 或者只有父方的。把现在注释的经文同4:13经文比较一下, 就清楚地可以看出, 前一种兄弟姐妹分得的份量比后一种要少的明显理由。
这部分继承法刻意与4:12, 13经文中述及的法律分开来处理。«古兰经» 在详细论述犹太人针对伊撒的攻击以后, 在本章末尾又回到 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah, 身后无父母子女者) 这个论题上来。这样, {除了使有关 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 的法律完整以外} 要求人们注意伊撒在精神上的无继承性, 他在某种意义上说, 也是一个 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah)。伊撒是在没有父亲的媒介下出生的, 他死后没有精神继承人。伊本, 阿巴斯给 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah) 下的定义是一个没有子女的人。伊撒在精神上是 كَلَالَةْ (Kalalah), 因为他死后没有精神继承人。
1
میرے ایک استاد کہا کرتے تھے کہ اس جگہ کلالہ سے مراد مسیحؑ ہے کیونکہ اوپر انہی کا ذکر ہے۔ واللہ اعلم بالصواب۔
کلالہ کے ورثہ کی تقسیم کے متعلق ایک حکم سورۃ نساء کی آیت۱۳ میں گزر چکا ہے۔ اس جگہ کلالہ کے ورثہ کی تقسیم کا جو مسئلہ بیان کیا گیا ہے‘ وہ پہلے سے مختلف ہے۔ سورۃ نساء کی آیت۱۳ میں یہ ذکر تھا کہ اگر کلالہ مر جائے اس کے بہن بھائی ماں کی طرف سے ہوں تو ان کو ۶ / ۱ یا ۳ / ۱ ملے گا۔ لیکن اِس جگہ اس کلالہ کا ذکر ہے جس کے بہن بھائی ماں اور باپ دونوں کی طرف سے ہوں یا صرف باپ کی طرف سے۔
a
4:13.
b
4:12.
c
4:27.
639
Important Words:
For the meaning of the word کلالة see 4:13.
Commentary:
ولد (child) means, child or children whether male or female, but as کلالة (kalalah) means, one having no child and no parent, the words ولا والد (and neither parent) may be taken as being understood after the words لیس له ولد. The word اثنتین (lit. two) here means two or more sisters. This meaning is supported by a verdict of the Holy Prophet in which he applied this verse to the case of Jabir who died, leaving seven sisters (Jarir, vi. 24). The word اخوة (brethren) here includes sisters and brothers both, as the words رجالا و نساء (both men and women), forming case in apposition with اخوة indicate.
This verse, placed as it is in between the verses dealing with the Christians and their false doctrines, appears to be rather misplaced. But as the following note will show, it is very fittingly placed here, furnishing a striking proof of the Quran as well as its present arrangement being the work of God.
In 4:13 mention was made of one kind of Kalalah (one who leaves behind neither a parent nor an offspring) who had brothers and sisters from the side of his mother only. The present verse refers to a Kalalah who has brothers and sisters from both his parents, or from the side of his father only. By comparing the verse under comment with 4:13 it becomes clear that for obvious reasons the share allotted to the former class of brothers and sisters is less than that allotted to those of the latter class.
This part of the law of inheritance has been purposely treated separately from the main portion of the law dealt with in 4:12, 13 in the beginning of the Surah. The object in doing so is not far to seek. After dealing at some length with the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jews and clearing his position, the Quran reverts to the subject of Kalalah at the end of the Surah, thus seeking (beside completing the law relating to Kalalah) to draw, by a most fitting parable, our attention to the spiritual heirlessness of Jesus who, in a sense, was also a Kalalah. He was born without the agency of a father, and he left behind no spiritual successor to succeed him in his prophetic office, which was, after his death, inherited by the Ishmaelites. In this case the words, If a man dies, leaving no child, may also signify that Jesus was a Kalalah, not in the sense that spiritually speaking he had neither parents nor child, but in the restricted sense that he had no child. See 4:13 under Important Words where Ibn ‘Abbas defines a Kalalah as simply one who leaves no child. Thus Jesus was spiritually a Kalalah in the sense that he left behind no spiritual successor. Compare also the prophecy, "I will raise them a prophet from among their brethren" (Deut. 18:18).
a
4:12.
b
4:27.
c
4:13.
715
In 4:13 mention was made of one kind of Kalalah who leaves behind neither a parent nor an offspring and who has brothers and sisters from the side of mother only. The present verse refers to a Kalalah who has brothers and sisters from both his parents, or from the side of his father only. By comparing the verse under comment with 4:13 it becomes clear that for obvious reasons the share allotted to the former class of brothers and sisters is less than that allotted to those of the latter class.
This part of the law of inheritance has been purposely treated separately from the law dealt with in 4:12, 13. After dealing at some length with the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jews, the Qur’an reverts to the subject of Kalalah at the end of the Surah, thus seeking (beside completing the law relating to Kalalah) to draw attention to the spiritual heirlessness of Jesus who in a sense was also a Kalalah. Jesus was born without the agency of a father, and he
ثَمَٰنِيَةَ أَزْوَٰجٍ ۖ مِّنَ ٱلضَّأْنِ ٱثْنَيْنِ وَمِنَ ٱلْمَعْزِ ٱثْنَيْنِ ۗ قُلْ ءَآلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا ٱشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحَامُ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ ۖ نَبِّـُٔونِى بِعِلْمٍ إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ
39:7.
39:7.
Important Words:
ازواج (mates) is the plural of زوج (a mate). The word is used to signify, one of the pair, whether male or female and whether among human beings or among animals, or whether among plants or among any class of things.
الضأن (sheep is the plural of الضائن (one sheep). The word is applied to all animals of the class of غنم (which cover both sheep and goats) having wool (Aqrab & Lane).
المعز (goats) is he generic plural of الماعز (one goat). The word is applied to all animals of the class of غنم (for which see above) having hair (not wool) and small tails (Aqrab & Lane).
Commentary:
See note under the following verse.
c
39:7.
a
39:7.883
Important Words:
ازواج (mates) is the plural of زوج (a mate). The word is used to signify, one of the pair, whether male or female and whether among human beings or among animals, or whether among plants or among any class of things.
الضأن (sheep is the plural of الضائن (one sheep). The word is applied to all animals of the class of غنم (which cover both sheep and goats) having wool (Aqrab & Lane).
المعز (goats) is he generic plural of الماعز (one goat). The word is applied to all animals of the class of غنم (for which see above) having hair (not wool) and small tails (Aqrab & Lane).
Commentary:
See note under the following verse.
b
39:7.
وَمِنَ ٱلْإِبِلِ ٱثْنَيْنِ وَمِنَ ٱلْبَقَرِ ٱثْنَيْنِ ۗ قُلْ ءَآلذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ أَمِ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ أَمَّا ٱشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ أَرْحَامُ ٱلْأُنثَيَيْنِ ۖ أَمْ كُنتُمْ شُهَدَآءَ إِذْ وَصَّىٰكُمُ ٱللَّهُ بِهَٰذَا ۚ فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ ٱفْتَرَىٰ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ كَذِبًا لِّيُضِلَّ ٱلنَّاسَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِى ٱلْقَوْمَ ٱلظَّٰلِمِينَ
6:22; 7:38; 11:19.
6:22; 7:38; 11:19.
The idolaters are asked whether they were present when Allah forbade the eating of oxen and camels. They are called upon to produce a Divine authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because eating of the flesh of cows and the camel is regarded as forbidden by some people on Scriptural authority—the cow by the Hindus and the camel by some Jews.
6:22; 7:38; 11:19.
Commentary:
Speaking of the laws devised by man, the Quran had referred to some pagan customs with regard to animals (6:140, 141). Now it gives its own laws with regard to them.
While speaking of sheep and goats in 6:144 above, the Holy Prophet is made here to ask the idolaters to inform him if these animals were unlawful, i.e. not fit for eating, and to bring forward (as hinted in the words نبٔونی بعلم i.e. inform me with knowledge) some rational argument or scientific reason to show that they should not be eaten. When, however, it speaks of oxen and camels in the present verse, the Quran asks idolaters whether they were witnesses when Allah forbade the eating of these animals. In other words, the verse here calls upon them to produce a religious authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because the cow and the camel are looked upon as forbidden by some on religious authority. For instance, the Hindus think it unlawful to eat beef for religious reasons and the Jews look upon the camel as forbidden by their scriptures.
This restriction is, however, unjustified; for, as regards beef, it is clearly allowed by the Vedas and was freely used in ancient India not only as ordinary food but also as an essential part of many religious ceremonies (Indo-Aryans by R. Mitra, LL.D., C.I.E.; The Review of Religions for 1923). As regards the camel, it is indeed forbidden by the Bible, but that prohibition is not meant for all time, for the Bible announces the advent of another Lawgiver whose Law was to abrogate the Law of the Bible (Deut. 18:18).
The words, Were you present when Allah enjoined, signify that when pagans do not believe in any revelation, they cannot possibly know that anything was forbidden by God.
d
6:22; 7:38; 11:19.
b
6:22; 7:38; 11:19.
884
Commentary:
Speaking of the laws devised by man, the Quran had referred to some pagan customs with regard to animals (6:140, 141). Now it gives its own laws with regard to them.
While speaking of sheep and goats in 6:144 above, the Holy Prophet is made here to ask the idolaters to inform him if these animals were unlawful, i.e. not fit for eating, and to bring forward (as hinted in the words نبٔونی بعلم i.e. inform me with knowledge) some rational argument or scientific reason to show that they should not be eaten. When, however, it speaks of oxen and camels in the present verse, the Quran asks idolaters whether they were witnesses when Allah forbade the eating of these animals. In other words, the verse here calls upon them to produce a religious authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because the cow and the camel are looked upon as forbidden by some on religious authority. For instance, the Hindus think it unlawful to eat beef for religious reasons and the Jews look upon the camel as forbidden by their scriptures.
This restriction is, however, unjustified; for, as regards beef, it is clearly allowed by the Vedas and was freely used in ancient India not only as ordinary food but also as an essential part of many religious ceremonies (Indo-Aryans by R. Mitra, LL.D., C.I.E.; The Review of Religions for 1923). As regards the camel, it is indeed forbidden by the Bible, but that prohibition is not meant for all time, for the Bible announces the advent of another Lawgiver whose Law was to abrogate the Law of the Bible (Deut. 18:18).
The words, Were you present when Allah enjoined, signify that when pagans do not believe in any revelation, they cannot possibly know that anything was forbidden by God.
a
6:22; 7:38; 11:19.
923
The idolaters are asked whether they were present when Allah forbade the eating of oxen and camels. They are called upon to produce a Divine authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because eating of the flesh of cows and the camel is regarded as forbidden by some people on Scriptural authority—the cow by the Hindus and the camel by some Jews.